Sick and Tired of Hearing About Jodi Arias !! (Phoenix, Maricopa: crimes, dangerous)

[Amythyst]

Originally Posted by Zippyman

When I went for jury duty, there were many people with relatives who were in law-enforcement in the pool. If they were allowed onto a jury (and they were), there's no reason to exclude those who know "criminals".

Quite different to know a criminal. To be married to one who's husband was prosecuted by the same District Attorney on a trial for which you are picked to be a juror on is a huge conflict. Had she informed the court of this, I doubt she would have been seated.

[Lyndarn]

Originally Posted by Amythyst

This juror would not deliberate.

She told the other jurors the DP is just revenge. Now it comes out Juan Martinez prosecuted her husband and you don't think there's an agenda on this woman's behalf?

Had she informed the court of this, she would not have been placed as a juror. It appears she mislead the court and upset the outcome of this penalty phase.

11 jurors voted for the DP, I hope the judge takes this into consideration and Jodi gets life with no chance of parole.

This is a travesty of justice with this one juror..

I'm amazed that Juan didn't ask that this juror get released as those other two just prior to closing arguments?? Did he try..and Judge Stephen's said no?? The juror's asked for her to be changed with an alternate as she would NOT deliberate past the first complete day..and Judge said NO.....I'm just SMH right now since ALL other juror's agreed on DP

[Amythyst]

Originally Posted by Lyndarn

I'm amazed that Juan didn't ask that this juror get released as those other two just prior to closing arguments?? Did he try..and Judge Stephen's said no?? The juror's asked for her to be changed with an alternate as she would NOT deliberate past the first complete day..and Judge said NO.....I'm just SMH right now since ALL other juror's agreed on DP

Very interesting that the jurors interviewed today stated that Juror 17, said
the Death Penalty would be nothing more than "REVENGE"....



Interestingly, those are the exact same words Arias used in a May
2013, interview!!
"Death Penalty would be REVENGE, not Justice."
Jodi
Arias
...

http://m.today.com/…/jodi-arias-death-penalty-would-be-reve…


It appears to be she did get her revenge.

If this case isn't one for capital punishment, what in her mind is?

I'm disgusted...

[Ponderosa]

Originally Posted by Amythyst

This juror would not deliberate.

She told the other jurors the DP is just revenge. Now it comes out Juan Martinez prosecuted her husband and you don't think there's an agenda on this woman's behalf?

Had she informed the court of this, she would not have been placed as a juror. It appears she mislead the court and upset the outcome of this penalty phase.

11 jurors voted for the DP, I hope the judge takes this into consideration and Jodi gets life with no chance of parole.

This is a travesty of justice with this one juror..

Who is to say that she even knew who Martinez was? It was 15 years ago. I, myself, was "prosecuted". I haven't the foggiest idea who the attorney for the county was. Maybe it was Martinez! One thing sure, people who have been through the mill with the system have a different view of the fairness of it all. That doesn't preclude one from jury service. They don't just pick ones who think the cops always tell the truth and an accusation by the county is proof enough (though most of the jurists they do pick are like that).

[LakeLifePA]

Originally Posted by observer53

You're tired of hearing about her, so you post a thread so you can discuss how tired you are of hearing about her? There's some irony there, too.

This was my first thought as well.

[AZgarden]

Originally Posted by Robert20170

This was my first thought as well.

But now you see, don't you, what a great thread this has become with all sorts of readers and opinions? Is that not what CD is all about?

[stevek64]

Originally Posted by Zippyman

Why not even just skip the whole "trial" thingy too?

they're expensive and unnecessary!

if Sheruff Joe and Nancy Grace say they're guilty, why waste all that time & money for an uncertain result?

I think every person has a right to their opinion/express their view, regardless if I/you agree with said opinion or not. I think we can agree on that?

As has been expressed by several on this thread, I'm also of the school in that what troubles me more than anything is if there's a juror who refused to participate/participate very little in the jury process and refuses to answer questions from other jurors who are deliberating in a case, that's a major red flag in my book. If some feel this is fine, a juror doesn't need to express themselves towards others/answer other juror's questions and sit like a bump on a log when questions are asked of them, then we agree to disagree. Perhaps some here would feel it's ok if we just send all the jurors home after a trial, they can mail in their "vote", no deliberations between any/all of them, and the process is done.....except....that's not how our system is suppose to work. ALL 12 jurors should be debating/expressing/reviewing the facts of the case as presented, between each other. If the holdout person(s) expressed why they felt a certain way towards this/that fact, and decide to prosecute someone or not prosecute someone, I think there would be no issue here. I may agree/not agree with their view, but at least if they took part in the process and expressed how/why they reached a certain conclusion, I think most would be ok with that.

Of course this is all irrational speculation by me, trusting the words of what several jurors expressed in this case, and I can be just falling under the ugly master agenda of perpetual bad information and I just need a better tin foil hat as I am told there is indeed ocean front property in Iowa that I'm missing that a few enlightened one's can somehow find.

[observer53]

Originally Posted by PhxBarb

But now you see, don't you, what a great thread this has become with all sorts of readers and opinions? Is that not what CD is all about?

It changed when everyone stopped talking about the defendant (who has worn out her welcome very well) and started talking about the jury(and particularly #17). It ends up as a completely different but related subject. Which does happen here quite often.

[CamaroGuy]

Well on April 13 she'll get LWOP and that will be the end of that!

[mbutterfly]

Originally Posted by Lyndarn

I'm amazed that Juan didn't ask that this juror get released as those other two just prior to closing arguments?? Did he try..and Judge Stephen's said no?? The juror's asked for her to be changed with an alternate as she would NOT deliberate past the first complete day..and Judge said NO.....I'm just SMH right now since ALL other juror's agreed on DP

I read that he did try including showing what was on her facebook page and it was denied. I do think Judge SS almost had to deny it though. I don't think they could really prove bias and might have risk the AC to over turn the death penalty that would have ensued. JMO of course.